Brazilian Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Cheers for the update Steelboy. So is the Society goal the original £800k or the additional £1mil? was going reasonably well with explanations to queries from the floor, until as usual fans start talking over each other about irrelavent business and some of the responses get lost. I think steelboy might have missed a response from Brian Mcafferty on what was the target?, that the target was effectively: an amount that will satisfy John Boyle, that there are sufficient funds to support the club. my understanding is that, £800k was the original amount that would have satisfied that, but with the catastropic start to the season, they need more than that now. as the impact of this terrible season, is imminent demand on the society funds as club security Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Wonder if the funds being raised will include the cost of letting the non-local members participate in the meetings. After the song and dance made about attracting us from all over the globe, we are still prevented from joining any of the discussions. About time we started making use of 21st Century technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 The fact that so little has been made public is a stain on the credibilty of the society and goes against its stated objectives. The society should be working in the interest of its members not smoothing things over for the club board or John Boyle. Just because you are a society member or turn up on a Saturday or comment a lot on forums doesn't mean you can be privie to all the clubs business and get a say in every decissions . Do you really think they are going to tell you every move , business don't work like . Everyone involved will be trying to do the best for the club of that I am sure. Did you go to the meeting tonight to make this point? So go and sit in a darkened room and i'll let you know when its all over .Who owns us and who manages us , will probably be the end of January by then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Just because you are a society member or turn up on a Saturday or comment a lot on forums doesn't mean you can be privie to all the clubs business and get a say in every decissions . Do you really think they are going to tell you every move , business don't work like . Everyone involved will be trying to do the best for the club of that I am sure. Did you go to the meeting tonight to make this point? So go and sit in a darkened room and i'll let you know when its all over .Who owns us and who manages us , will probably be the end of January by then I don't expect anything from the club. The society is a different matter, being a member means you should be aware of what the board is doing on your behalf. Agreeing to confidentiality agreements goes against the stated ethos of the society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I don't expect anything from the club. The society is a different matter, being a member means you should be aware of what the board is doing on your behalf. Agreeing to confidentiality agreements goes against the stated ethos of the society. Aye but this is the real world of football and big business .So things sometimes need to work a bit differently .It would be mad to lay yer cards on the table at a society meeting and then everyone and their uncle knows your position within 10 mins and spread in the papers next day. Nope, just need to be patient and see what happens , keep the faith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 The discussions at present as I understand are to gain additional funds to take the WS to the 800k threshold. All that does is buy more time to raise the additional funds +550k to take full control of the club. A stay of execution if you will. Agree with Brazilian, too many who attend can't distinguish between the role and remit of the WS and the and remit of the club board. As for Steelboy, you and the two who attended with you took an aggressive approach with your line of questions, don't know what you hope to achieve with behaviour like that. To suggest Brian got a kickback to keep his mouth shut had many cringing in their seats. Regardless, by this time next week we'll be better informed and a lot of the hearsay and conjecture will be put to bed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 To suggest Brian got a kickback to keep his mouth shut had many cringing in their seat ........ classy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 As for Steelboy, you and the two who attended with you took an aggressive approach with your line of questions, don't know what you hope to achieve with behaviour like that. To suggest Brian got a kickback to keep his mouth shut had many cringing in their seats. I don't think he was suggesting there was a kickback, just inquiring what the societies interests were in agreeing to a non disclosure agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I don't expect anything from the club. The society is a different matter, being a member means you should be aware of what the board is doing on your behalf. Agreeing to confidentiality agreements goes against the stated ethos of the society. Real life dos the work like that. They are telling us what they can without negatively affecting any potential outcome. That's ok with me as paying Society member. Yea, the comms could maybe be a little clearer but not a major issue for me. Sit tight and things will sort themselves out one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 1416955293[/url]' post='425763']I don't think he was suggesting there was a kickback, just inquiring what the societies interests were in agreeing to a non disclosure agreement. That's how I understood it. Typical fair for a Well Society meeting, from the hurried copying of proxy voting forms to the various members talking over others who were holding the floor. Fundamental flaws in the path they've taken, a chosen path that has never been discussed with their members, again this wasn't explained. Whilst they may yet succeed, I suspect the form will differ from their ideal with rapid change from their stance showing early next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSoc Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 Just to add to a couple of things that the meeting probably didn't clear up sufficiently: 1 The 800k target was raised, in early October. This was done to make sure that the club could meet all financial obligations in the worst-case scenario. This was after the early European exit and the League Cup defeat and league form. That was why the society went looking for loans to the club - because the club could need them. 2 The confidentiality agreement. The reason/benefits to the society for signing it was that the potential lender made it a pre-condition of talks. Without signing it, there would be no potential loan and the game would have been over a long time ago. The potential lender did not want people knowing their identity and being harassed by the media and people speculating about them, and possibly being blamed if things didn't work out. But if a deal is finalised then the identity will be made public. The same thing happened with Ann Budge at Hearts - her identity wasn't revealed until there was a lot more certainty about that deal being done. In general, everyone should expect more information from the Well Society, moves towards that were made in the summer but this is a difficult period when people the board are dealing with are demanding confidentiality. Hopefully there is a positive conclusion and we can build from there. Also in general, the financial situation has changed dramatically since the Well Society was set up by the club. The initial (over-ambitious) target of raising £1.5m to act as a safety net has been undermined by the fact that we have raised over 500k but the club has lost the best part of £1million in the three years since. So trying to find a solution that provides both safe/community ownership and financial stability for the club has been a lengthy process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 The initial (over-ambitious) target of raising £1.5m to act as a safety net has been undermined by the fact that we have raised over 500k but the club has lost the best part of £1million in the three years since. So trying to find a solution that provides both safe/community ownership and financial stability for the club has been a lengthy process. I think that a point raised on many occasions is why we have lost 1million in three years. We know why as it has been explained but I do not believe we should accept this as good business practice. Ultimately it sounds as if we depend on a list of criteria (cup runs/europe/high table finishes) in preparation of our budget. Many accountants will say to base budgets on a worst case scenario. Therefore everything else is a bonus and would lead to profitability. Also it has been indicated before we need to sell one player a season. This is where budgets come onto a football pitch and it's clear we have not primed any individual footballer as far as I can see that will allow this to happen. We cannot sell and gain any value in Reid, Ramsden, McManus, Hammell, Lasley and Sutton due to age. Ojammaa is not our player. Ainsworth is on a one year deal. So what happens on the park will not allow us to generate extra income in this way. I notice we quoted Anne Budge regarding confidentiality agreements. Interesting quote today Budge says the financial models run by clubs in the past are not sustainable. "There is a fundamental business rule that says you shouldn't be spending more than you bring in - it's not rocket science," she added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 Ojamaa is a bad example as we made a tidy sum bringing him in for free, paying him peanuts then selling him on. However, even when he had assets like Randolph in the books, we didn't receive a single offer for him. I think everyone agrees you shouldn't spend more than you earn - the difficulty in this climate is projecting income for the coming season. As we have shown, it's just as easy for our team to be in a relegation battle as it is fighting for 2nd spot. It doesn't seem unreasonable to budget for mid-table. If you budget for bottom 3 or 4, that leads to other problems (such as only being able to afford a team that finishes in the bottom 3 or 4). Oh, and let's not forget - as much as we (and I include myself in that) all enjoyed Rangers starting over in the bottom league, that took a lot of money out of our league from TV money to sponsorships. We definitely need to do a better job budgeting, but like many businesses, we have been hit by a combination of significant economic factors that have made it especially difficult to predict income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 Budget for finishing 10th every season and first round exit of cups. Simple. Anything above that is a bonus. If that means losing some high earners, well am all for that. Even if we totter around in the championship for a few years before coming back up, better that than no club at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 So the confidentiality is down to the potential backer of the 'Well Society. Fair enough. Does the 'Well Society know the detail of competing takeover bids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 So the confidentiality is down to the potential backer of the 'Well Society. Fair enough. Does the 'Well Society know the detail of competing takeover bids? They claimed to know of NO other bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 They claimed to know of NO other bids. Pretty grim if true but it questions the merit of the scaremongering tone that accompanied the £10k loan letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 was it not the case that they said, they know; no detail of any other bid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi-1991 Posted November 26, 2014 Report Share Posted November 26, 2014 So basically, someone is full of shit. We just don't know who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Brazilian is correct, no details of rival bids and no acknowledgement of them. Odd situation as WS are on one hand are looking to take control of the club while two board members are sitting on the main club board and surely privvy to any other interested parties. Are they asked to leave the meeting or are these other offers discussed without the WS present? Brian was asked if there was a rival bid, if the WS would have preference or any assurances. At that stage Flow advised it was always JB's desire to see the club go into fan ownership. A better question may have been if there's a rival bid and it's in excess of the WS total (£1.5m), what will happen then? To be fair its not a question the WS could answer unless they'd asked JB direct in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Maybe it's option C. If the well society didn't work then John Boyle or him and some mates are going to come in and have a crack at it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Budget for finishing 10th every season and first round exit of cups. Simple. Anything above that is a bonus. If that means losing some high earners, well am all for that. Even if we totter around in the championship for a few years before coming back up, better that than no club at all. I personally don't buy into that simplistic approach and I dont think there is a need to go to that extreme of low budget setting. All it does is set the club up to not progress as we would never have a squad to challenge league/cups, win more cash and push on. However, nor do I buy into basing a budget on unrealistic aims and overspending year on year. There needs to be a middle ground that will help the club progress as well as be safe from dwindling into a club that always hovers around the relegation zone. Budgeting for a Top 6 finish but not budgeting for great cup runs or selling a player every year for example? At the end of the day it is about how risk averse you are as a person in regards what you would aim for. A carefully forecasted and well managed budget should allow you to safely financially speculate and improve year on year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Brazilian is correct, no details of rival bids and no acknowledgement of them. Agreed, similar thinking, could have worded my response a little differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Maybe it's option C. If the well society didn't work then John Boyle or him and some mates are going to come in and have a crack at it again. I think its safe to say JB wants nothing more to do with the club, he dabbled, got some good times out of it along with a few bad, however doesn't want the liability going forward. To think otherwise is not looking at the evidence of the past couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 We seem to have budgeted for doing well, but not factored in that doing well triggers bonus payments, or that's my summing up of the messages that come out of fir park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.